Back
1981 Supreme(Ori) 203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G.B. Patnaik, J.
BISHNU MALLICK - APPELLANT
Versus
SADHU MALLIK AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
Criminal Rev. No. 583 of 1983
Decided On : 16-12-1981
G.N. Mohapatra, for the Appellant; R.K. Mohanty, for the Respondent
The rejection of an adjournment prayer without proper consideration and application of mind may be deemed arbitrary and not in the interests of justice.
Headnote:
Adjournment - Criminal Procedure - The magistrate's rejection of the prayer for adjournment without considering the grounds and without application of mind was found to be arbitrary and not in the interests of justice. The order was set aside, and the magistrate was directed to give the first party an opportunity to produce necessary evidence before proceeding with the case.
Fact of the Case:
The first party member filed an application for adjournment, which was rejected by the magistrate, leading to the closure of the first party's evidence. The court stayed the proceeding, and the matter did not proceed further.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the magistrate's rejection of the adjournment prayer was arbitrary and without proper consideration, and not in the interests of justice. The order was set aside, and the magistrate was directed to give the first party an opportunity to produce necessary evidence before proceeding with the case.
Issues: The rejection of the adjournment prayer by the magistrate and the closure of the first party's evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The magistrate's rejection of the adjournment prayer without proper consideration and application of mind was found to be arbitrary and not in the interests of justice.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision was allowed, and the order of the magistrate was set aside, directing the magistrate to give the first party an opportunity to produce necessary evidence before proceeding with the case.
JUDGMENT :
G.B. Patnaik, J. - First-party member No. 1 in a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the Petitioner against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 9.11.1983.
2. It appears from the order of the learned Magistrate that the proceeding was fixed to 10.8.1983. On that day an application for adjournment had been filed by the first party, but that prayer was rejected and the Magistrate closed the evidence of the first party and directed the second party to adduce evidence on 13.9.1983. On 13.9.1983, an application had been filed by the first party to recall the earlier order to which the second party members filed an objection, Ultimately by the impugned order dated 9.11.1983, the said application filed by the first party was rejected and the second party was directed to adduce evidence on 3.12.1983, but the proceeding having been stayed by this Court by order dated 15.12.1983, the matter has not proceeded any further.
3. The short question for consideration is whether the Magistrate was justified in rejecting the prayer of the first party for adjournment on 10.8.1983 and closing the evidence of the first party on that date. True it is that the first party has been found to be guilty of certain laches but that by itself would not be sufficient to reject the prayer for adjournment without even considering the ground on which the prayer for adjournment had been made. The Order of the learned Magistrate refusing the prayer for adjournment shows that the Magistrate has passed the order arbitrarily without application of mind and in the interests of justice, in my opinion, the said order cannot be sustained. I would accordingly set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 9.11.1983 as well as the order of the Magistrate dated 10.8.1983 and call upon the Magistrate to give one Opportunity to the first party member to produce necessary evidence before him whereafter he will proceed with the case and ultimately dispose of the same in accordance with law, Mr. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner undertakes that the first party will appear before the Magistrate on 4th of January, 1988. whereafter the Magistrate will fix a date for further hearing. Since the matter has been unnecessarily delayed on account of the pendency of the proceeding in this Court, the Magistrate would do when to dispose of the proceeding within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the records by him, send back the records immediately.
4. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed.
Final Result : Allowed
